Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[samba]

Preston, that name rings a bell
Oh, right.

.

It seems that your standard answer is....read Massei, the coherent theory is thoroughly discussed there. I've read it and it sure does seem like Preston read it too. You can be sure he read it.

According to many on here (myself included), it was the Massei report that convinced me of innocence. I eagerly awaited all of the details that would convince me of their guilt (the details that supposedly the American press was hiding from me). Still waiting.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you had said it wouldn't provide any "evidence" to support her alibi, you would have been no less wrong, but at least your comment would have been less conceptually addled.

At any rate, by excluding him from your glib remark, may I presume you agree that- if it can be shown that the computer was more or less in continuous use from 9pm to 1am- that WOULD "provide an alibi" for the boyfriend?

And if Sollecito is shown to have been at home while Knox met up with Guede to kill Meredith, is there anyone who would seriously be prepared to postulate that Sollecito would have not revealed this by now? Even if Sollecito were besotted with Knox, they'd been together all of six days. And even if Sollecito had not been involved in the killing, but had somehow been seduced into helping clean up the crime scene the following day (making him culpable of a criminal offence) - which in itself seems extraordinarily unlikely anyhow - there's no way that he wouldn't have told the truth by now.

I find it very hard to understand how people can logically say things along the lines of: "Oh well, even if Sollecito can be shown to have been at his apartment during the time of the murder, this still means that Knox could have done it" etc etc. To me, the entire case against both of them logically falls apart if the laptop in Sollecito's apartment were shown to have been in frequent use between 8.30pm and 1am on the 1st/2nd November.

PS: OT, but YAY for the return of "Peep Show"

 

[platonov]

Well, it was a very long complex post

Originally Posted by platonov

Preston, that name rings a bell
Oh, right.

It seems that your standard answer is....read Massei, the coherent theory is thoroughly discussed there. I've read it and it sure does seem like Preston read it too. You can be sure he read it.

According to many on here (myself included), it was the Massei report that convinced me of innocence. I eagerly awaited all of the details that would convince me of their guilt (the details that supposedly the American press was hiding from me). Still waiting.

You appear to have misinterpreted my very short post - it doesn't mention Massei.
Can I be sure you read it !

I hope you had less trouble making sense of the Massei report itself

 

[LondonJohn]

How does the prosecution disprove these statements otherwise? Do they have ironclad witnesses, like Patrick did, of their presence somewhere else at the time of the murder? If not, then agreeing to tests is the easiest way to disprove the statements and therefore disallow their testimony. I think the prosecution is afraid of the implications that arise from these tests regardless of their outcome.

Two things are pretty apparent to me in regard to the stain testing:

a) The first court's ruling that testing it would be of no value - because, regardless of what it was (and whose it was if it were semen), it's impossible to date and would add nothing to the knowledge of the crime - is patently risible, for obvious reasons; and

b) The police forensics team's explanation for not testing the stain - that they had to make an either/or decision about testing the stain or testing footprints on the pillowcase - is equally risible.

 

[LondonJohn]

You appear to have misinterpreted my very short post - it doesn't mention Massei.
Can I be sure you read it !

I hope you had less trouble making sense of the Massei report itself

I don't think that anyone with a reasonably developed sense of analytical reasoning can make sense of the Massei report. It's littered with poor reasoning, logical non sequiturs, seemingly arbitrary choices, post-hoc rationalisations and internal contradictions. (But other than that, a brilliant piece of deductive reasoning....)

PS: you forgot the unnecessary and superfluous extra line space and full stop in this last post of yours. I'll add it here for you if you like:

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raf's appeal on the boxcutter

"In essence, in the view of the Court, Raffaele Sollecito’s habit of carrying in his pocket a small boxcutter would be enough to deduce that he used it to strike the victim, and it is for the defence, if anyone, to prove otherwise.
It is important to note that not only does there not exist a single element to link the murder with a boxcutter of Sollecito’s, but even the representatives of the prosecution have never drawn attention to this theory." (page 75)

The authors of the appeal used bolding, not I. The logic is compelling, and platonov is wrong (again).

 

[platonov]

I don't think that anyone with a reasonably developed sense of analytical reasoning can make sense of the Massei report. It's littered with poor reasoning, logical non sequiturs, seemingly arbitrary choices, post-hoc rationalisations and internal contradictions. (But other than that, a brilliant piece of deductive reasoning....)

PS: you forgot the unnecessary and superfluous extra line space and full stop in this last post of yours. I'll add it here for you if you like:

.

So it didn't 'appeal' to you - are you certain you got the gist of it.

.

 

[platonov]

"In essence, in the view of the Court, Raffaele Sollecito’s habit of carrying in his pocket a small boxcutter would be enough to deduce that he used it to strike the victim, and it is for the defence, if anyone, to prove otherwise.
It is important to note that not only does there not exist a single element to link the murder with a boxcutter of Sollecito’s, but even the representatives of the prosecution have never drawn attention to this theory." (page 75)

The authors of the appeal used bolding, not I. The logic is compelling, and platonov is wrong (again).

Link please - remember we had 'problems' before
.

 

[LondonJohn]

"In essence, in the view of the Court, Raffaele Sollecito’s habit of carrying in his pocket a small boxcutter would be enough to deduce that he used it to strike the victim, and it is for the defence, if anyone, to prove otherwise.
It is important to note that not only does there not exist a single element to link the murder with a boxcutter of Sollecito’s, but even the representatives of the prosecution have never drawn attention to this theory." (page 75)

The authors of the appeal used bolding, not I. The logic is compelling, and platonov is wrong (again).

I get the feeling that it's about much more than logic and debate to some people at this point, but that's just my feeling of course....

It's important to bear in mind that even if Sollecito were in the habit of carrying round a 6-inch flick knife (as opposed to a "boxcutter"), this would still not be of any probative value against Sollecito. This is yet another example of Massei's faulty reasoning: Sollecito habitually carries round a knife, therefore it's reasonable to conclude that this was the "second knife" in the prosecution's murder scenario. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In plain English

Link please - remember we had 'problems' before
.

What problems? Either back your claim up or withdraw it.

post script

Do you concede your previous argument (that the line of reasoning in the appeal would make it impossible to convict without a murder weapon) was wrong?

 

[katy_did]

Link please - remember we had 'problems' before
.

Were you looking for a link to the appeal or to Massei's reasoning? I'm sure you've read the latter.

Basically, this is the defence addressing the unsupported introduction of a second knife on the basis that Sollecito carried a knife in his pocket. There's been quite a lot of discussion of that over the past few days (e.g. Barbie Nadeau's article). Do you think Massei had a more compelling reason to assume the second (or third?) knife belonged to Sollecito?

 

[platonov]

In plainer english

What problems? Either back your claim up or withdraw it.

I already have (backed it up) - lets have a link.

If nothing else I'd like to see the context & how much emphasis the defence put on this.
I still remember the 3 line 'paradoxically' issue as regards C's evidence.

.

 

[katy_did]

I already have (backed it up) - lets have a link.

If nothing else I'd like to see the context & how much emphasis the defence put on this.
I still remember the 3 line 'paradoxically' issue as regards C's evidence.

.

This point (the issue of the second knife) is addressed mainly in Part 3, Section X of Raffaele's appeal. The defence object to a discrepancy between the offence with which Raffaele was charged and that for which he was convicted, since the hypothesis that one of his knives was used to make the wounds was never discussed during the trial itself. They also mention the unsupported hypothesis that Amanda carried a large knife in her handbag in the same section (briefly). In short, yes, they put a fair amount of emphasis on it in the sense that a section of the appeal is devoted to it.

ETA: The sentences Chris quoted are actually from the introduction to the second part of the appeal, not the main section in which the second knife is discussed - even though it's talked about a fair bit in the earlier section too. And it's mentioned again in Section XII, when the defence discuss reasonable doubt. So it's discussed quite extensively, and isn't just confined to that one section.

 

[Chris C]

The PMF translators are not native speakers? Perhaps you should ask Machiavelli for a translation?

That seems to be Alt+F4's common defense when she is wrong. Your not italian.

 

[Onofarar]

Kevin Lowe's calculation is correct based on his assumptions. At the risk of lecturing a short course on statistics and probabilities follows:

To arrive at the probability of a series of events happening you must multiply them together - the more events the more items to multiply and the lower overall probability. Thus the odds of heads occurring two times in a row are 25% (0.5 x 0.5). (Accounting for all the possibilities: 25% - two heads, 25% - two tails, and 50% one each).

Now, let's put some real (unreal?) possibilities to Kevin's abstract example - Let's assign events that may have occurred to each variable:
X = Amanda bought/stole bleach on the morning of Nov 2nd.
Y = Amada and Raffaele were at the basketball court at 9:30 PM on Nov 1st
Z = Amanda carried a large knife from RS's kitchen in her bag for protection.

Further, Kevin conservatively assigned 60% probablility to each event actually happening - which is a generous hypothetical which I understood to be the probability equivalent of "more likely than not".
Thus the probability that ALL THREE happened is 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 = .213 or 21.3%. BTW - assuming 100% certitude for one event (which I don't) only increases the probability to 0.36 or 36%.
Machiavelli, reversed the calculation as follows: 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 = 0.064
AND he subratcted that result from 1.00 to get = 0.936 or 93.6%.
But that answers a different question than Kevin posed. Kevin is saying there is only a 21%+ chance that all three events occurred whereas Machiavelli calculates the chance that NONE of them occurred at all. I think he wants us to believe that such a high probability means no reasonable doubt.

I think it is obvious which calculation actually reveals probable doubt.

BTW - generally statistical certitude for probabilities is generally accepted to be 2 or 3 standard deviations. Given a traditional bell curve distribution 2 SD = 95% or 3 SD = 99%. Thus, Machiavelli's calculation even if you accept its logical underpinnings does not meet the statistical minimum of 5% (the inverse of 95%) let alone the 3 sd standard.
How do 2 SD and 3 SD apply to justice? A 2 SD system considers it acceptable that 5% of all trials convict innocent people. A 3 SD system accepts only 1%.

 

[platonov]

This point (the issue of the second knife) is addressed mainly in Part 3, Section X of Raffaele's appeal. The defence object to a discrepancy between the offence with which Raffaele was charged and that for which he was convicted, since the hypothesis that one of his knives was used to make the wounds was never discussed during the trial itself. They also mention the unsupported hypothesis that Amanda carried a large knife in her handbag in the same section (briefly). In short, yes, they put a fair amount of emphasis on it in the sense that a section of the appeal is devoted to it.

ETA: The sentences Chris quoted are actually from the introduction to the second part of the appeal, not the main section in which the second knife is discussed - even though it's talked about a fair bit in the earlier section too. And it's mentioned again in Section XII, when the defence discuss reasonable doubt. So it discussed quite extensively and isn't just confined to that one section.

What problems? Either back your claim up or withdraw it.

post script

Do you concede your previous argument (that the line of reasoning in the appeal would make it impossible to convict without a murder weapon) was wrong?

Firstly ....See the earlier Lipstadt reference.

Before I waste time looking thru Massei I need to see the Defence doc with a link to a reputable source to ascertain if haildes1 misrepresented the claim*, or if its as weak as it sounds or if there is a good argument.

* which related to the AK appeal ..."Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidencewith respect to the putative second knife"

I concede nothing.

.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Fascinating. Excellent explanation Onofarar.

Thank you!

 

[Chris C]

Italians are deeply embarrassed at the bright light this case has shone on their criminal-justice system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/amanda-knox-appeal

I would have to disagree with this part.

The Politians aren't embarrassed, they and the justice system have been at war for years. The Politians pass laws to try and change how their justice system works and the Justice system ignores them or interprets a different meaning.The Politians are happy everytime the Justice system fails. Because when the System fails they get to point it out to the people.

The majority of the everyday citizens aren't embarrassed. They already mistrust their justice system because its failings have already been pointed out to them by the media and politians.

So that really just leaves some of the police and justice system feeling embarrassed. I'm willing to bet most of the members of the justice system still feel Knox/Sollecito are guilty. So they wouldn't be embarrassed. However, I believe the appeals judge will give Knox/Sollecito their requests on independant review if for no other reason because the media would attack them even more if they refused.

 

[katy_did]

Firstly ....See the earlier Lipstadt reference.

Before I waste time looking thru Massei I need to see the Defence doc with a link to a reputable source to ascertain if haildes1 misrepresented the claim*, or if its as weak as it sounds or if there is a good argument.

* which related to the AK appeal ..."Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidencewith respect to the putative second knife"

I concede nothing.

.

While I thoroughly agree that trawling through Massei for any sort of logical and coherent argument with regard to the second knife would be an utter waste of your time, I'm still not quite sure what kind of link you're looking for. Do you mean to the defence appeal documents? If so, I believe they're on the IIP site. The Massei report is on PMF, of course.

The defence are raising a legal point: the right of the accused to be tried for offences he or she has been given fair notice of, and for which they can then prepare a defence. If the judge starts arbitrarily introducing new offences after the trial is over, in a document which is supposed to explain the reasons for the conviction, how can the defendant possibly defend themselves against that? This is the argument which is being put forward in the appeal, backed by the appropriate legal references.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kevin Lowe's calculation is correct based on his assumptions. At the risk of lecturing a short course on statistics and probabilities follows:

To arrive at the probability of a series of events happening you must multiply them together - the more events the more items to multiply and the lower overall probability. Thus the odds of heads occurring two times in a row are 25% (0.5 x 0.5). (Accounting for all the possibilities: 25% - two heads, 25% - two tails, and 50% one each).

Now, let's put some real (unreal?) possibilities to Kevin's abstract example - Let's assign events that may have occurred to each variable:
X = Amanda bought/stole bleach on the morning of Nov 2nd.
Y = Amada and Raffaele were at the basketball court at 9:30 PM on Nov 1st
Z = Amanda carried a large knife from RS's kitchen in her bag for protection.

Further, Kevin conservatively assigned 60% probablility to each event actually happening - which is a generous hypothetical which I understood to be the probability equivalent of "more likely than not".
Thus the probability that ALL THREE happened is 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 = .213 or 21.3%. BTW - assuming 100% certitude for one event (which I don't) only increases the probability to 0.36 or 36%.
Machiavelli, reversed the calculation as follows: 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 = 0.064
AND he subratcted that result from 1.00 to get = 0.936 or 93.6%.
But that answers a different question than Kevin posed. Kevin is saying there is only a 21%+ chance that all three events occurred whereas Machiavelli calculates the chance that NONE of them occurred at all. I think he wants us to believe that such a high probability means no reasonable doubt.

I think it is obvious which calculation actually reveals probable doubt.

BTW - generally statistical certitude for probabilities is generally accepted to be 2 or 3 standard deviations. Given a traditional bell curve distribution 2 SD = 95% or 3 SD = 99%. Thus, Machiavelli's calculation even if you accept its logical underpinnings does not meet the statistical minimum of 5% (the inverse of 95%) let alone the 3 sd standard.
How do 2 SD and 3 SD apply to justice? A 2 SD system considers it acceptable that 5% of all trials convict innocent people. A 3 SD system accepts only 1%.

No, it's a fair deal more complicated than that to work out the statistical probabilities in this case. It's not simply a case of multiplying the individual probabilities. If it were, then you'd get the anomalous result that one piece of evidence that was 99% "proof of guilt" was massively better proof than 200 pieces of evidence that each were 99% "proof of guilt" - 0.99^200 = 13.4%.

Instead, this is a case of nested conditional probabilities. If we say that A = guilt, and the three pieces of evidence are x, y and z, then, statistically, what is being expressed is the probability of A given x - P(A given x), which is (arbitrarily) given as 0.6 in this instance. And, similarly, P(A given y) and P(A given z) are both also 0.6.

The question then becomes, if P(A given x), P(A given y) and P(A given z) each equal 0.6, then what is P(A given x,y,z)?

This is a complex statistical puzzle. And it's most definitely not answered by multiplying together the three original conditional probabilities. So I'd be extremely interested to see Machiavelli's working behind his 93.6% answer.

ETA I just realised that you'd provided Machiavelli's calculations for him within this post. And he's performing a thoroughly bogus calculation to reach his answer as well (if indeed this is the way he calculated his answer). But I'd still be interested in hearing more of his statistical acumen....